Jump to content

Mormon President Of The "Free" World? Would It Be Paradise?


ozpoof

Recommended Posts

Could a Mormon US President create a US that is happier, fairer, less corrupt, cares for the poor and sick better (as Jesus would), and honest? Might there be any drawbacks to having a Mormon US president - domestic and foreign policy?

Link to comment

Could a Mormon US President create a US that is happier, fairer, less corrupt, cares for the poor and sick better (as Jesus would), and honest? Might there be any drawbacks to having a Mormon US president - domestic and foreign policy?

Not unless he was Satan, and took away everybody's free agency!

Ok, that was facetious (just having a little fun!).

Simply being LDS does not say a lot about what type of person this hypothetical POTUS would be. Because the Church does not support any particular political party, or require its members to, he could be from any party. He might be a member of a certain party, but not agree with everybody else in that party. He could be honest, or he might be corrupt. (More likely, he or she would be like most of us, and a little of both!) Merely being Mormon does not guarantee he'd be a good President, or even a good person. And even if she was a good person and a good President, she wouldn't necessarily be able to fix all of our problems.

Link to comment

Not unless he was Satan, and took away everybody's free agency!

Ok, that was facetious (just having a little fun!).

Simply being LDS does not say a lot about what type of person this hypothetical POTUS would be. Because the Church does not support any particular political party, or require its members to, he could be from any party. He might be a member of a certain party, but not agree with everybody else in that party. He could be honest, or he might be corrupt. (More likely, he or she would be like most of us, and a little of both!) Merely being Mormon does not guarantee he'd be a good President, or even a good person. And even if she was a good person and a good President, she wouldn't necessarily be able to fix all of our problems.

On the subject of free agency, how much freedom to act in a democratic way would an LDS President of the US have? If there was a referendum and same sex marriage was voted for by the majority, and the president had veto and chose to let the wishes of the US people supersede his religion's concept of sin, would he be called to answer to his higher authority - The Prophet?

Do Mormons in politics in UT allow free agency?

Link to comment

On the subject of free agency, how much freedom to act in a democratic way would an LDS President of the US have? If there was a referendum and same sex marriage was voted for by the majority, and the president had veto and chose to let the wishes of the US people supersede his religion's concept of sin, would he be called to answer to his higher authority - The Prophet?

Do Mormons in politics in UT allow free agency?

If presented with a bill from the Congress that would legalize SSM, the President would have three options. (1) Sign the bill. (2) Not sign the bill, and return it to the Congress within ten days, with a written explanation of his objections--this is the veto. (3) Not sign the bill, but also not return it to the Congress within ten days. In that case, the bill would automatically become law without his signature.

If the President does not uphold the Constitution of the United States, he should not be President. And no, the President does not answer to the Prophet. If he thinks he should, he should not be President. His loyalty is to the People and the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees freedom of religion, and having a religious leader like the Prophet directing the POTUS would violate that principle.

Having said that, I see no reason why an LDS President could not veto a bill that would legalize gay marriage, by reason of his own conscience and reasoning, and understanding of the Constitution and of what is best for the country, even if the majority of the People want it passed. The Constitution set up a system of checks and balances, and the presidential veto power is part of that system. With a 2/3 majority, Congress could override the veto. The People could also choose a new president in the next election.

Link to comment

If presented with a bill from the Congress that would legalize SSM, the President would have three options. (1) Sign the bill. (2) Not sign the bill, and return it to the Congress within ten days, with a written explanation of his objections--this is the veto. (3) Not sign the bill, but also not return it to the Congress within ten days. In that case, the bill would automatically become law without his signature.

If the President does not uphold the Constitution of the United States, he should not be President.

Having said that, I see no reason why an LDS President could not veto a bill that would legalize gay marriage, even if the majority of the People want it passed. The Constitution set up a system of checks and balances, and the presidential veto power is part of that system. With a 2/3 majority, Congress could override the veto. The People could also choose a new president in the next election.

So he could delay what the majority want. I'm thinking about how a Catholic president compares with a potential LDS president. Do you agree the LDS church has a greater influence over those members who wish to remain full members than the Catholic church has over a person who considers themselves Catholic?

With the LDS church's views on what is supposed to occur in the Middle East prior to the return of Christ, would a Mormon president be 100% behind seeking a solution to the conflict there, or see the current situation as leading to an inevitable climax of world war? Would a believing LDS president of the US be reluctant to take action that may delay the return of Christ?

Link to comment

So he could delay what the majority want. I'm thinking about how a Catholic president compares with a potential LDS president. Do you agree the LDS church has a greater influence over those members who wish to remain full members than the Catholic church has over a person who considers themselves Catholic?

I can't answer that for sure. There may be many Catholics who are strong believers and would want to follow the Pope. I do know there was some concern because JFK was Catholic, and some Protestants thought that meant the Pope would be leading the U.S.

With the LDS church's views on what is supposed to occur in the Middle East prior to the return of Christ, would a Mormon president be 100% behind seeking a solution to the conflict there, or see the current situation as leading to an inevitable climax of world war? Would a believing LDS president of the US be reluctant to take action that may delay the return of Christ?

In my opinion, if a President thought that way, he should be kicked out of office ASAP. Prophecies might describe what will happen sometime in the future, but we don't necessarily know when, nor is it our job to try to make such prophecies happen. Latter-day Saints should be about the business of promoting peace, or they have no business calling themselves saints. That's my opinion, but I'm sure others on this board will disagree. Judge for yourself.

Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace. -- (D&c 98:16)

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him. -- (Moroni 7:16-17)

Link to comment

I can't see a Mormon US president being very good for the church internationally. The US is a dirty word for many in the international community and being a Mormon would only create an association with the church which would not be very good.

Paddy

Link to comment

Paddy:

Why? The Church is well known and respected throughout the world. Until very recently the US ambassador to China was a Mormon(John Huntsman). Harry Reid is the well known Speaker of the US Senate. He is respected throughout the world. He's a Mormon. Mormons come in all types of political persuasions. If you are a Mormon in US politics your first duty and responsibility is to support and defend the Constitution of the US.

Link to comment

Could a Mormon US President create a US that is happier, fairer, less corrupt, cares for the poor and sick better (as Jesus would), and honest? Might there be any drawbacks to having a Mormon US president - domestic and foreign policy?

The US President doesn't work alone. He has a Congress to deal with and so no matter what his ideals he still has to get that body to cooperate.

I don't think a Mormon President would be any more effective than someone else with high integrity and who supports the Constitution. I don't think he would be any worse either nor do I think it would have a negative effect on the church and in fact might generate more people wanting to know the truth rather than the rumors.

Link to comment
Could a Mormon US President create a US that is happier, fairer, less corrupt, cares for the poor and sick better (as Jesus would), and honest?

If by "Mormon" you mean someone who believes the doctrine and puts it into practice, he could have a great influence to that effect. But as mentioned above, you can't limit or take away agency. That would be contrary to the Gospel and the principles you are hoping to have followed.

Might there be any drawbacks to having a Mormon US president - domestic and foreign policy?

Depends on what you consider to be a drawback. Ostensibly no if he were following the principles of the Gospel. For example, we would probably be engaged in more war and conflict in one sense and perhaps less in another. I think there would be an overall initial increase in war as we put down our enemies and helped our neighbors and then there would be a period of peace. But since the POTUS can only be POTUS for eight years max, you might need to have several Mormon presidents in a row to accomplish that.

Link to comment

On the subject of free agency, how much freedom to act in a democratic way would an LDS President of the US have? If there was a referendum and same sex marriage was voted for by the majority, and the president had veto and chose to let the wishes of the US people supersede his religion's concept of sin, would he be called to answer to his higher authority - The Prophet?

Do Mormons in politics in UT allow free agency?

The prophet strongly opposed repeal of the 18th amendment (prohibition). Despite this, Utah became the 36th (and deciding) state to vote for repeal.

Re. SSM (and other major controversial issues), it is inconceivable that anyone who was elected president would not have declared a public position during the campaign. If a president who opposed SSM vetoed a SSM bill that was supported by a majority of the people, they would have nobody to blame but themselves.

BTW, even though I strongly oppose state sanctioned SSM, I do not believe that it is sinful to support it. A surprising number of good and decent people disagree with me about all sorts of things.

Link to comment
With the LDS church's views on what is supposed to occur in the Middle East prior to the return of Christ, would a Mormon president be 100% behind seeking a solution to the conflict there, or see the current situation as leading to an inevitable climax of world war? Would a believing LDS president of the US be reluctant to take action that may delay the return of Christ?

I can tell you this: There is no Latter-day Saint professionally involved in the study of the Middle East since the rise of Islam or in Middle Eastern diplomacy -- and I know all or virtually all of them quite well -- who believes that LDS doctrine dictates a specific detailed view of contemporary Middle Eastern politics or prescribes specific policy measures. There is, in fact, considerable variety of opinion among us on such matters. That said, though, none of us believes that LDS doctrine requires us to withdraw from attempts to make peace there (or anywhere else).

Steve Beecroft, for instance, is the ambassador of the United States to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. And my longtime friend Matt Tueller, a career State Department employee who was a fellow student in Cairo years ago, has recently been nominated to serve as U.S. ambassador to Kuwait. They're scarcely disengaged from trying to do good in the Middle East, simply sitting back waiting for the eschatological fireworks.

Link to comment

So he could delay what the majority want.

That was precisely the intent of those who wrote the constitution.

I'm thinking about how a Catholic president compares with a potential LDS president. Do you agree the LDS church has a greater influence over those members who wish to remain full members than the Catholic church has over a person who considers themselves Catholic?

Considering the behavior of many of our political leaders, I am far more concerned that their respective churches have too little influence over their members, rather than too much.

Link to comment

Could a Mormon US President create a US that is happier, fairer, less corrupt, cares for the poor and sick better (as Jesus would), and honest? Might there be any drawbacks to having a Mormon US president - domestic and foreign policy?

One would hope that an LDS president would have charity for his fellow man, high standards of moral conduct, and great integrity. Come to think of, those traits would be desirable of any person who serves in an elected position.

It certainly wouldn't be worse if they did.

Bernard

Link to comment

Could a Mormon US President create a US that is happier, fairer, less corrupt, cares for the poor and sick better (as Jesus would), and honest? Might there be any drawbacks to having a Mormon US president - domestic and foreign policy?

I don't know how you would separate the "Mormon-ness" of a politician from his political and other views. For example, in what ways could you say that Romney's governorship of Massachusetts reflected his religion more so than his conservative political ideals and the realities of leading a liberal-leaning state?

But I would certainly hope that an LDS president would reflect LDS values such as happiness, fairness, integrity, charity (although I don't necessarily consider it "charitable" to forcefully take money from someone in order to give it to someone else), and honesty.

Link to comment

So he could delay what the majority want.

America isn't governed by "majority rule" (if it were, we wouldn't have a Senate where Rhode Island has the same influence as California), so I'm not necessarily bothered when politicians go against what "the majority" want. Sometimes it's for the better.

Depending on if I'm in the majority or not, of course.

Link to comment

I think it is silly to think that LDS doctrine would influence any Mormon Pres to relax in seeking peace in the Middle East. The Israel of modern political boundaries is not the same thing as the Israel of prophecy. The Book of Mormon has more than one example of attempts to seek peace when people thought it was useless (Bible too, in Jonah). And we don't know the timetable.

Hopefully what an LDS president WOULD mean (and any other person of personal integrity who has not been corrupted either by power or thinking that a little corruption to preserve her/his power is okay since he she needs to be in office for the greater good), is that decisions would be based on things other than the effect of the decision on his or her reelection or favorable polling or where she/he would get funding for a campaign, and wholly be based on what he/she believed was in the best interest of the country she/he was elected to lead.

Link to comment

Could a Mormon US President create a US that is happier, fairer, less corrupt, cares for the poor and sick better (as Jesus would), and honest? Might there be any drawbacks to having a Mormon US president - domestic and foreign policy?

I'm just going to have to answer your questions with questions:

What difference would the religion of the President make? I think the difference would only be made on late night talkshows and Youtube.

How would the Evangelicals, Catholics, Atheists, Testigos de Jehova, etc. be happier as a result of a Mormon occupying the Oval Office? They all think we're an evil cult -- I think there might be even more polarizing in America, more homeschooling and more Ruby Ridge fiascos.

How would anything be more fair? Are you thinking maybe of an LDS President implementing a welfare program a la The Church's welfare program? Hmmm....I like what you're thinking.

How would Congress be less corrupt because of having an LDS President? We've already had a Senate Majority Leader who is LDS -- did that have a measurable effect on the paradise scale? How would the poor & needy be better taken care of with an LDS President? And on foreign policy, I initially thought it wouldn't matter, except that we believe in the literal gathering of Israel, and that's gotta make non-Israelites in The-middle-east-i-stan a bit nervous, so it might actually complicate things a bit.

Interesting thread.

(BTW, I'm overly-stressed-out, so if I offended anyone please accept my apologies...the whole right side of my brain isn't firing...)

Link to comment

America isn't governed by "majority rule" (if it were, we wouldn't have a Senate where Rhode Island has the same influence as California), so I'm not necessarily bothered when politicians go against what "the majority" want. Sometimes it's for the better.

Depending on if I'm in the majority or not, of course.

Sorry, I'm not entirely familiar with US politics. I'm Australian. Our state populations are represented in the Senate proportionately.

Link to comment

Could a Mormon US President create a US that is happier, fairer, less corrupt, cares for the poor and sick better (as Jesus would), and honest? Might there be any drawbacks to having a Mormon US president - domestic and foreign policy?

Did Mormon?

In the end it always depends on the people.

Link to comment

I don't know how you would separate the "Mormon-ness" of a politician from his political and other views. For example, in what ways could you say that Romney's governorship of Massachusetts reflected his religion more so than his conservative political ideals and the realities of leading a liberal-leaning state?

But I would certainly hope that an LDS president would reflect LDS values such as happiness, fairness, integrity, charity (although I don't necessarily consider it "charitable" to forcefully take money from someone in order to give it to someone else), and honesty.

All civilized nations forcefully take money (taxes, levies) from some citizens in order to give it to other people. It seems some Americans believe this should not include caring for the sick if they can't care for themselves. Is it then fair for gay people to be taxed when they technically aren't full citizens in many states? What about childless people who help subsidize education for other people's children through taxation? Is that fair? Sometimes governments take measures that are beneficial to society as a whole. Society does not benefit from having people die from easily curable diseases during their peak working age, or people made homeless due to medical bills that are 10 times what it would cost in any other First World nation.

The US gives foreign aid. That's forcefully taking money from someone (US taxpayers) in order to give it to someone else. I don't understand why some Americans draw the line at the sick and afflicted.

Link to comment

Sorry, I'm not entirely familiar with US politics. I'm Australian. Our state populations are represented in the Senate proportionately.

The US has two lawmaking houses. The House of Representatives is proportional to population for each state. Large states like California have many more representatives than small states like Rhode Island. The individuals in that state are all popularly elected every two years. The second house is the Senate which has two senators for each state regardless of the population of that state. Senators are also elected by popular vote every six years.

Laws must pass both houses and be signed by the President (though a presidential veto can be overridden with a 2/3 vote in both houses).

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...